Kerry's Take On Iraq A Highly Debatable Proposition

October 6, 2004|By Max Boot

Now that he's decided to close the campaign as Howard-Dean-with-a-Silver-Star, John Kerry is claiming that the war he voted to authorize in Iraq is a "profound diversion" from the things that really matter -- al-Qaida, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, even an alleged lack of firehouses in the United States. The implication is that if only we hadn't gotten involved in Iraq, the rest of the world would be in much better shape. This is a highly debatable proposition.

Kerry castigates Bush for spending $200 billion (actually $130 billion, but who's counting?) in Iraq and not spending it at home for schools, health care and firefighters. Yet in the next breath, he attacks Bush for being profligate, period. Which is it? Is Bush spending too much or too little?

Kerry is on firmer ground when he suggests that Bush has allowed "the urgent nuclear dangers in North Korea and Iran to mount on his presidential watch." True, and if one advocated a get-tough policy with Pyongyang and Tehran, the fact that 130,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq might be an impediment. (Or they might help boost the pressure on Iran.) But Kerry doesn't advocate such a policy. He wants to sign a generous deal that would pay these rogue states not to produce nukes. Appeasement hardly requires military muscle.

What of Kerry's claim that Bush was so focused on Iraq that he let al-Qaida run wild? Actually, two-thirds of al-Qaida's senior leadership has been caught or killed. And the United States is getting more cooperation in fighting terrorism now than it did before 9-11. Look at the big roundups of al-Qaida suspects recently in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. As French Arabist Gilles Kepel argues in a new book, the jihadists are losing their war to gain control of the Muslim world.

It's true that Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught, but it's far from clear that this is due to a lack of trying. NATO forces have been searching Bosnia for war crimes suspects Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic since 1995 and haven't found them.

Kerry is on really weak ground when he suggests that Bush's focus on Iraq has worsened the situation in Afghanistan. This may have seemed plausible amid the gloom-and-doom reporting of a year or two ago, but recent news is largely positive.

President Hamid Karzai has sidelined two noxious warlords. The Afghan army is growing in size and effectiveness. NATO troops are patrolling Kabul and expanding into the provinces. In an Asia Foundation poll, two-thirds of Afghans said the country was moving in the right direction.

All this progress may be occurring not despite our troubles in Iraq but because of them. If jihadists weren't attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, they would probably be throwing more energy into attacking them in Afghanistan.

Also, if the United States didn't have all those troops in Iraq, it would be tempted to send more than the present commitment of 18,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. A greater U.S. presence could help fuel a nationalist backlash and result in greater casualties, as has occurred in parts of Iraq. The Bush administration may have stumbled onto the best strategy for Afghanistan -- a low-key, long-term commitment that relies primarily on building indigenous security forces.

But whether or not Iraq was central to the war on terrorism before the invasion -- a point on which reasonable people can differ -- there is no question that it is central today. British Prime Minister Tony Blair puts it well: "I can understand why people still have a powerful disagreement about the original decision to go to war, but surely now it is absolutely clear we have to stay and see it through. Because the consequence of not doing so is that global terrorism will get a tremendous boost." Bush understands that. Does Kerry?

Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote this for the Los Angeles Times, 202 W. First St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.